Troy

Profile vs. FBS, 2020

Farther out is better on every spoke. Dashed ring: the FBS median.

• EPA per play

  Expected points added on an average snap: how much each play moved the scoring odds.
  Offense+0.1252nd
  Defense+0.0863rd
• Success rate

  Share of snaps that stayed on schedule: half the yards needed on 1st down, 70% on 2nd, all of them on 3rd or 4th.
  Offense44.3%67th
  Defense43.3%48th
• Explosiveness

  Average EPA on the successful snaps: how big the good plays were.
  Offense+1.2337th
  Defense+1.2166th
• Rushing EPA

  EPA per designed run.
  Offense+0.0443rd
  Defense+0.0360th
• Passing EPA

  EPA per pass play.
  Offense+0.1651st
  Defense+0.1366th
• Standard downs

  Success rate on downs where either a run or a pass makes sense, like 1st and 10 or 3rd and 2.
  Offense47.4%55th
  Defense48.3%48th
• Passing downs

  Success rate on downs that all but force a pass, like 2nd and 8 or longer, or 3rd and 5 or longer.
  Offense37.2%83rd
  Defense31.7%56th
• Line yards

  Rushing yards per carry credited to the offensive line, weighting the first few yards most.
  Offense2.8547th
  Defense2.8063rd
• Stuff rate

  Share of runs stopped at or behind the line of scrimmage.
  Offense21.2%37th
  Defense19.2%42nd
• Havoc

  Share of snaps with a tackle for loss, sack, forced fumble, interception or pass breakup.
  Offense16.0%53rd
  Defense15.2%34th

Percentiles among the 127 FBS teams this season, where higher is better for the offense and the defense alike (a defense's numbers are what it allowed). The line in each bar is the FBS median. Garbage time excluded. Source: CollegeFootballData.

Drives vs. expectation, 2020

Every snap has an expected-points value: what a drive from that spot, down and distance is worth on average. A drive over expected beat its starting spot; defense counts what Troy allowed, so lower is better. The adjusted number fits every team against the opponents it actually played, so it leans toward average early in a season. Ranks are among FBS teams.

Game by game

1. W
   MTSU
2. L
   BYU
3. W
   TXST
4. W
   EKU
5. L
   GAST
6. W
   ARST
7. L
   GASO
8. L
   MTSU
9. L
   APP
10. W
    USA
11. L
    CCU

Bars above the line: better than expected for Troy.

Players, 2020

1. Gunnar WatsonQB247 plays · +0.178 pts/play · 33rd of 212 QBs
   0.83WAR0.38 to 1.22
2. Jacob FreeQB161 plays · +0.105 pts/play · 103rd of 212 QBs
   0.32WAR0.08 to 0.58
3. Kimani VidalRB94 plays · +0.137 pts/play · 138th of 338 RBs
   0.24WAR0.17 to 0.30
4. B.J. SmithRB78 plays · +0.139 pts/play · 163rd of 338 RBs
   0.20WAR0.15 to 0.25
5. Kaylon GeigerWR70 plays · +0.145 pts/play · 24th of 409 WRs
   0.19WAR0.10 to 0.28
6. Reggie ToddWR58 plays · +0.141 pts/play · 50th of 409 WRs
   0.15WAR0.08 to 0.22
7. Tray EaffordWR39 plays · +0.198 pts/play · 61st of 409 WRs
   0.14WAR0.10 to 0.19
8. Khalil McClainWR47 plays · +0.131 pts/play · 89th of 409 WRs
   0.12WAR0.06 to 0.17

By position group, against FBS

Linemen and defenders are valued as units, in points per game against the median FBS unit, because play-by-play doesn't say who was on the field. Players are valued against a replacement-level backup, so the two aren't added together.

Wins above replacement credits each play's expected points to the players involved, adjusted for the opponent, and compares Troy's players with a typical backup; 53 points make a win. Only snaps while the game was in doubt count, so a starter on a team that blows opponents out plays fewer of them: read value per play beside WAR. The line under each player (or the range on a phone) is the 90% interval. Ranks are among FBS teams and players. How this works

What it had and what it did, 2020

• Roster talent

  247Sports' talent composite: the recruiting ratings of every player on the roster, transfers included.
  324324109th of 127Roster talent: 324, 109th of 127 in FBS
• Recruiting

  Average 247Sports class score over this season's class and the three before it.
  14314387th of 127Recruiting: 143, 87th of 127 in FBS
• Returning production

  Share of last season's production (expected points added) by players still on the roster.
  61%61%71st of 127Returning production: 61%, 71st of 127 in FBS
• SP+ rating

  The result: Bill Connelly's opponent-adjusted rating, points per game better than an average FBS team.
  +2.3+2.354th of 127SP+ rating: +2.3, 54th of 127 in FBS

Ranks and bars among the 127 FBS teams with a talent rating this season, best first; the line in each bar is the FBS median.

Talent conversion

Conversion by season

Fourth-down calls vs. the numbers, 2020

Each real fourth down is valued three ways (go for it, kick, punt) from the score, clock and field position before the snap, using league-wide odds rather than Troy's own. A call that differs gives up the gap to the best option; gaps under one point are close calls, and the 5 clear-cut ones account for 0.11 of the 0.15 expected wins. The model sees the situation, not the injury report, so a call it disagrees with can still be right. Ranks are among FBS teams; 1st gave up the least.

Costliest calls against the numbers

1. vs MTSUQ4 9:00 4th & 2 at TROY 48, down 7Punted; the numbers favored going for it−3.8 pts
2. at GASOQ3 8:26 4th & 2 at GASO 2, up 4Kicked a field goal; the numbers favored going for it−2.6 pts
3. vs EKUQ4 2:54 4th & 2 at TROY 48, up 5Punted; the numbers favored going for it−2.4 pts
4. at GASOQ4 9:41 4th & 8 at GASO 33, down 7Went for it; the numbers favored a field goal−1.2 pts
5. vs TXSTQ2 7:22 4th & 3 at TXST 45, up 17Punted; the numbers favored going for it−1.1 pts
6. at MTSUQ2 3:02 4th & 5 at MTSU 35, up 10Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
7. at ARSTQ3 10:53 4th & 4 at ARST 43, up 21Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−1.0 pts
8. vs TXSTQ3 7:31 4th & 2 at TROY 43, up 13Punted; the numbers favored going for it (close call)−0.7 pts

Record vs. expectation, 2020

90th of 127 FBS teams at beating the model's pregame expectations

Expected wins adds up Troy's chance of winning each game as the model saw it at kickoff - a 70% favorite counts 0.7.

1. W

   MTSU
2. L

   BYU
3. W

   TXST
4. W

   EKU
5. L

   GAST
6. W

   ARST
7. L

   GASO
8. L

   MTSU
9. L

   APP
10. W

    USA
11. L

    CCU

What moved it, 2020

Every game starts at Troy's pregame chance; everything after that is the field. The model's own breakdown of each game's final play splits the on-field part by what drove it, and the parts add up exactly. How it works →

• Scoreboard−0.12
• Possession & field position−0.03
• Clock−0.05
• Timeouts−0.03
• Less the pregame edge, counted before kickoff−0.18

Game by game

• MTSUW 47-14 at MTSU52% → 100%Before kickoff +2 · On the field +48: Scoreboard +51, Clock +2
• BYUL 7-48 at BYU15% → 0%Before kickoff −35 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −19
• TXSTW 37-17 vs TXST67% → 100%Before kickoff +17 · On the field +33: Scoreboard +35, Timeouts −1
• EKUW 31-29 vs EKU97% → 96%Before kickoff +47 · On the field −1: Scoreboard +8
• GASTL 34-36 vs GAST61% → 10%Before kickoff +11 · On the field −51: Scoreboard −47, Clock −3
• ARSTW 38-10 at ARST39% → 100%Before kickoff −11 · On the field +61: Scoreboard +61
• GASOL 13-20 at GASO56% → 4%Before kickoff +6 · On the field −52: Scoreboard −40, Timeouts −2
• MTSUL 17-20 vs MTSU75% → 5%Before kickoff +25 · On the field −70: Scoreboard −53, Clock −3
• APPL 10-47 at APP17% → 0%Before kickoff −33 · On the field −17: Scoreboard −20
• USAW 29-0 at USA61% → 100%Before kickoff +11 · On the field +38: Scoreboard +43, Clock +1
• CCUL 38-42 vs CCU19% → 5%Before kickoff −31 · On the field −15: Scoreboard −29, Clock −2

Points of win probability, from Troy's side.

Closest call

USA 24-31 TROY (2021) - Troy dropped to a 2.4% win probability before pulling it out.